When I connect to the socket server from the client side, which is considered react, every few seconds a repeated request is sent by the socket client. Generally, the requests are of get type and most of the time they are in pending mode. Sometimes the result of requests is 2.
What do you think is the problem of sending repeated requests after connecting or doing anything with the socket?
UPDATE
This problem occurs when I use namespace . I tried all the solutions but this problem was not solved.
image
This is expected behavior when the option used for transport is polling (long-polling).
What happens is, by default, the transport parameter is ["polling", "websocket"] (client, server), where the sequence of elements matters. So, the first connection attempt is made via polling (which is faster to start compared to websocket), and then (or in parallel, I don't know the working details) there is a connection attempt by websocket (this takes a little longer to establish but is faster for later communication).
If the websocket connection is successfully established, the communication will be carried in this way. But if an error occurs, or the connection takes a long time to be established, or this transport option is not present in the instance's parameters, then the communication will continue being carried out through polling, which are the various requests that remain pending. It is normal for them to remain pending, so they receive an update and are able to inform the requester immediately, without the need for several quick requests consulting the application's status.
Check the instance parameters you set for this connection to find out if transport via websocket is enabled. Be careful when using the socket server behind a reverse proxy, as this reverse proxy needs to be properly configured to accept websocket connections, otherwise it won't work.
You can check the websocket requests in the browser inspection, Network tab, by enabling the WS filter.
Here are some additional links for you to read more about:
https://socket.io/docs/v4/how-it-works/
https://socket.io/docs/v4/using-multiple-nodes/
https://socket.io/docs/v4/reverse-proxy/
https://ably.com/blog/websockets-vs-long-polling
Related
I am using websockets to talk with server but I want to prevent client from connecting if a requirement is not met. My code is very simple
let socket = new WebSocket('wss://server.com/server/');
socket.addEventListener('open', function(e) {
// we are now connected
});
How does nodeJS connect? It must send a connect message right? Is there a way to edit that message? I'd like to limit it so connections can not be made unless a key is sent with the connection message.
How it works now I send a "login request message" and if the credentials dont match I terminate the connection but currently people could still open connections without sending the login request. This would be a security issue right? People could just DDOS by creating a bunch of connections without logging in.
It's not NodeJS's responsibility to manage DOS/DDOS requests. That is done at the network layer (routers, switches, load balancers, proxies, etc.). See this answer for more detail: protection agains DOS websocket with ip address
Preventing users from continuing to communicate over the socket can be done after a successful connection is made and then the key sent, after which, if it's marked as valid by the server, it continues, otherwise it closes the connection. The limits on how many times a client can connect (or in this case re-connect) are handled by the network rules.
On the Server side for websockets there is already an ping/pong implementation where the server sends a ping and client replies with a pong to let the server node whether a client is connected or not. But there isn't something implemented in reverse to let the client know if the server is still connected to them.
There are two ways to go about this I have read:
Every client sends a message to server every x seconds and whenever
an error is thrown when sending, that means the server is down, so
reconnect.
Server sends a message to every client every x seconds, the client receives this message and updates a variable on the client, and on the client side you have a thread that constantly checks every x seconds which checks if this variable has changed, if it hasn't in a while it means it hasn't received a message from the server and you can assume the server is down so reestablish a connection.
You can achieve trying to figure out on client side whether the server is still online using either methods. The first one you'll be sending traffic to the server whereas the second one you'll be sending traffic out of the server. Both seem easy enough to implement but I'm not so sure which is the better way in terms of being the more efficient/cost effective.
Server upload speeds are higher than client upload speeds, but server CPUs are an expensive resource while client CPUs are relatively cheap. Unloading logic onto the client is a more cost-effective approach...
Having said that, servers must implement this specific logic (actually, all ping/timeout logic), otherwise they might be left with "half-open" sockets that drain resources but aren't connected to any client.
Remember that sockets (file descriptors) are a limited resource. Not only do they use memory even when no traffic is present, but they prevent new clients from connecting when the resource is maxed out.
Hence, servers must clear out dead sockets, either using timeouts or by implementing ping.
P.S.
I'm not a node.js expert, but this type of logic should be implemented using the Websocket protocol ping rather than by your application. You should probably look into the node.js server / websocket framework and check how to enable ping-ing.
You should set pings to accommodate your specific environment. i.e., if you host on Heroku, than Heroku will implement a timeout of ~55 seconds and your pings should be sent before this timeout occurs.
This applies to non-user facing backend applications communicating with each other through HTTP. I'm wondering if there is a guideline for a maximum timeout for a synchronous HTTP request. For example, let's say a request can take up to 10 minutes to complete. Can I simply create a worker thread on the client and, in the worker thread, invoke the request synchronously? Or should I implement the request asynchronously, to return HTTP 202 Accepted and spin off a worker thread on the server side to complete the request and figure out a way to send the results back, presumable through a messaging framework?
One of my concerns is it safe to keep an socket open for an extended period of time?
How long a socket connection can remain open (without activity) depends on the (quality of the) network infrastructure.
A client HTTP request waiting for an answer from a server results in an open socket connection without any data going through that connection for a while. A proxy server might decide to close such inactive connections after 5 minutes. Similarly, a firewall can decide to close connections that are open for more than 30 minutes, active or not.
But since you are in the backend, these cases can be tested (just let the server thread handling the request sleep for a certain time before giving an answer). Once it is verified that socket connections are not closed by different network components, it is safe to rely on socket connections to remain open. Keep in mind though that network cables can be unplugged and servers can crash - you will always need a strategy to handle disruptions.
As for synchronous and asynchronous: both are feasable and both have advantages and disadvantages. But what is right for you depends on a whole lot more than just the reliability of socket connections.
How do I find out from a socket client program that the remote connection is down (e.g. the server is down). When I do a recv and the server is down it blocks if I do not set any timeout. However in my case I cannot put any reliable timeout value to get around it since otherwise the recv times out even when the server is up but the response really takes longer than the timeout value that I have set.
Unfortunately, ZeroMQ just passes this on to the next layer. So the protocol you are implementing on top of ZeroMQ will have to handle this.
Heartbeats are recommended. Basically, just have one side send a message if the connection is otherwise idle. The other side can treat the absence of such messages as a failure condition and close the connection.
You may wish to modify your higher level protocols to be more robust. For example, you can submit a command, query its status, and allow the other side to forget about the command. That way, if the connection is lost, you can reconnect and query any outstanding commands. Any it doesn't have, you know didn't get through and can resubmit. Once you get a reply with the result of a command, you can tell the other side that it can now forget the response.
This allows you to keep the connection active while a long-running command is ongoing. Every so often you ask, "is everything okay". The other side responds, "yes". You can use long polling where the other side delays responding for a second or so while the command is in process. This allows it to return the results immediately rather than having to wait a second for your next query.
The specifics depend on your exact requirements, but you must design this correctly into your protocol.
If the remote host goes down without sending you a tcp FIN package then you have no chance to detect that. You can test that behaviour by firewalling a port after a connection has been established on that port. Your program will "hang" forever.
However, the Linux kernel supports a mechanism called TCP keep alives which are meant to close a tcp connection after a given timeout. If you can't specify a timeout for your application, than there isn't a reliable chance to use that. Last chance might be to use features of the application protocol (can you name it?), if that protocol does not support features for connection handling you may invent something on your own on top of that.
I'm trying to set up a server that can handle a high sustained amount of simultaneous requests. I found that at a certain point, the server won't be able to recycle "old" TCP connections quickly enough to accommodate extreme amounts of requests.
Do websockets eliminate or decrease the amount of tcp connections that a server needs to handle, and are they a good alternative to "normal" requests?
Websockets are persistent connections so it really depends on what you're talking about. The way socket.io uses XHR is different from a typical ajax call in that it hangs onto the request for as long as possible before sending a response. It's a technique called long-polling and It's trying to simulate a persistent connection by never letting go of the request. When the request is about to timeout it sends a response and a new request is initiated immediately which it hangs onto yet again, and the cycle continues.
So I guess if you're getting flooded with connections because of ajax calls then that's probably because your client code is polling the server at some sort of interval. This means that even idle clients will be hitting your server with fury because of this polling. If that's the case then yes, socket.io will reduce your number of connections because it tries to hang onto one single connection per client for as long as possible.
These days I recommend socket.io over doing plain ajax requests. Socket.io is designed to be performant with whatever transport it settles on. The way it gracefully degrades based on what connection is possible is great and means your server will be overloaded as little as possible while still reaching as wide an audience as it can.